Taliban - The moral equivalent of America's founding fathers.

[Independent]

if you see Muslims oppressing non Muslims they are not doing so as representatives of Islam. They are doing it out of ignorance and a twisted understanding of Islam. These type of Muslims are the minority.

I agree with this and I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary. There is an additional problem because some Muslims commit acts specifically in the name of their religion (whether or not they have the right to do so). You can't expect the media not to report this and people not to be influenced by it.

Ireland/UK have had their fair share of terrorism and there was a time when an Irish accent on the streets of London was not a good thing. But it's amazing how swiftly that passed now the war is (mostly) over. Most English people always understood that it was a minority committing offences. But during the height of the Troubles they couldn't tell the difference.

If your country is neutral and you hate war as you say then why do you continuously criticize the actions that some Muslim individuals or countries make?

I hate war but sometimes war is unavoidable, such as the war against fascism. I would have volunteered for that. (Which means that I personally am not neutral.)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I interpret the above is, since the stronger countries are in power let us take advantage of the weaker ones, in this case Muslims and continue to put them down and make them feel even smaller than they already are.

No, that's not what I meant at all! I am making an observation about what has happened history in general, not what I'd like to happen.

If you look at empires and you take away the names and the faces, just give them numbers, then look at what they did, it starts to look amazingly similar. The one guiding principle that seems to make sense is that, if a country is stronger than its neighbour, then one day it will probably attack it. Empires expand till someone stops them.

When you say that the crimes of modern western states 'far exceed' anything by past or present Muslim states that's a huge claim and I don't agree with you at all. As I say, just like other states and empires, Muslim states expanded when they were strong and contracted when they were weak. If you made a claim like 'Muslim empires were better than most' then you could make a case for that.

In recent decades the world has begun to change and being a weak state doesn't automatically mean you'll get swallowed up by your next-door neighbour. But it's not easy to stop all wars and the issues are often highly disputed.

please quote me some examples where when Muslims were in power, they oppressed their non Muslim citizens to the extent that the modern day governments oppress Muslims whether in wars or in non combatant everyday life scenarios.

This is such a big topic. Actually you've got two things in there - treatment of citizens within a state, or attack against another state.

As far as expansion by military power is concerned, I've already said above that the Muslim empires are not dissimilar to other empires throughout history. The Muslim empires continued to conquer their neighbours until their neighbours got strong enough to stop them. What's the difference, apart from which side you happen to be cheering for?

 

[جوري]

The difference is that with the spread of Islam it was never about raping and pillaging rather truth and justice!

Best,

 

[Independent]

The difference is that with the spread of Islam it was never about raping and pillaging rather truth and justice!

And that's a third issue - which is that, although all empires consume neighbouring territories, some are more savage about the act of conquest than others. Ghengis Khan springs to mind.

It's an important question - but not nearly as important as by what right are they invading in the first place?

The various Muslim empires had no more natural right to conquer other states than anyone else today or in the past. Or do you think they did?

 

[جوري]

There's no truth to that which you've written!
Often times Muslims were invited to aid the oppressed against their oppressors and in other cases they formed through free trade and that's been the secret to the longevity since the inception of Islam to the dissolution of the ottomans which is a very recent thing and because Muslims adopted kaffir ideology and forgo their own.

As I said before read more history and write less!

 

[Independent]

There's no truth to that which you've written!
Often times Muslims were invited to aid the oppressed against their oppressors and in other cases they formed through free trade and that's been the secret to the longevity since the inception of Islam to the dissolution of the ottomans which is a very recent thing and because Muslims adopted kaffir ideology and forgo their own.

Yes, 19th century British imperialists used to justify their invasions the same way as you. But the Brits at least have moved with the times and now judge things differently.
.

 

[جوري]

Yes, 19th century British imperialists used to justify their invasions the same way as you. But the Brits at least have moved with the times and now judge things differently.
.

I can't help your lack of historical knowledge or your one size fits all generalizations.
It is enough to be blessed with the gift of Islam. I come from a country that had deep historical roots and a fantastic civilization thousands of years before Islam yet embraced Islam almost in totality without putting up their dukes. So that for starters should clue you in!

best,

 

[Mustafa2012]

Ireland/UK have had their fair share of terrorism and there was a time when an Irish accent on the streets of London was not a good thing. But it's amazing how swiftly that passed now the war is (mostly) over. Most English people always understood that it was a minority committing offences. But during the height of the Troubles they couldn't tell the difference.

Until the media stop manipulating the action of ignorant extremists, the masses will keep getting brainwashed into thinking that the views and actions of the minority are representative of Muslims as a whole.

But the media don't want people to know what real Islam is about, do they?

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
If your country is neutral and you hate war as you say then why do you continuously criticize the actions that some Muslim individuals or countries make?

I hate war but sometimes war is unavoidable, such as the war against fascism. I would have volunteered for that. (Which means that I personally am not neutral.)

Are you comparing Islam to facism?


Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I interpret the above is, since the stronger countries are in power let us take advantage of the weaker ones, in this case Muslims and continue to put them down and make them feel even smaller than they already are.

No, that's not what I meant at all! I am making an observation about what has happened history in general, not what I'd like to happen.

If you look at empires and you take away the names and the faces, just give them numbers, then look at what they did, it starts to look amazingly similar. The one guiding principle that seems to make sense is that, if a country is stronger than its neighbour, then one day it will probably attack it. Empires expand till someone stops them.

When you say that the crimes of modern western states 'far exceed' anything by past or present Muslim states that's a huge claim and I don't agree with you at all. As I say, just like other states and empires, Muslim states expanded when they were strong and contracted when they were weak. If you made a claim like 'Muslim empires were better than most' then you could make a case for that.

I wasn’t expecting you to agree with me on this one but we don’t need to look very far back like for e.g Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq was a war built upon a huge lie which was engineered by Tony Blair and his PR man and who knows how many other stooges behind the scenes. The lie was publicised by the Zionist media like as if it was fact. The whole world was led to believe that the war was based on legitimate grounds when in fact it was one of the biggest lies of this century. They claimed they were after Saddam Hussain and they could have easily got him if they wanted even though no WMD’s were found.

We all know that oil is one of the main reasons they invaded Iraq, besides mass murder but why could they just not state their intentions openly to the world instead of lying about it. That was very low of them, considering the high standards and ethics they claim to hold.

I think the Iraq War was bigger and more damaging than 10 x 9/11’s because more than 10 times the no. of people that died in 9/11 were murdered in Iraq. The reasons they used for going to war were based on lies. They lied and then murdered thousands of innocent people.

These are the actions of mainly Christian Western civilised leaders with support from their Zionist friends in the media, not Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists. That makes the crimes of Iraq all the more worse than 9/11.

We're talking about thousands of innocent people got murdered when it could have been easily avoided. That to me is not collateral damage but clear and planned state sponsored murder.

In recent decades the world has begun to change and being a weak state doesn't automatically mean you'll get swallowed up by your next-door neighbour. But it's not easy to stop all wars and the issues are often highly disputed.

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
please quote me some examples where when Muslims were in power, they oppressed their non Muslim citizens to the extent that the modern day governments oppress Muslims whether in wars or in non combatant everyday life scenarios.

This is such a big topic. Actually you've got two things in there - treatment of citizens within a state, or attack against another state.

As far as expansion by military power is concerned, I've already said above that the Muslim empires are not dissimilar to other empires throughout history. The Muslim empires continued to conquer their neighbours until their neighbours got strong enough to stop them. What's the difference, apart from which side you happen to be cheering for?

I disagree with you here. Let's take attacking against another state for e.g. When Muslims go to war they have to abide by strict rules and codes of conduct that is ingrained within our religion. They usually clear announce their intentions upfront.

The difference is that although the West claims to be the most civilised, we have all heard and seen how they lied about their intentions just to get the public support and threw all their rules out the window before even stepping onto the battlefield in recent times. And once there, there were many cases of prisoner abuse, murder, rape and bombing of innocent people. To this day innocent civilians are being murdered every day in Afghanistan.

I can confidently say that this does not happen on the same scale when Muslims go to war. The no. of wrongdoings on the Muslim side are far less that what we’ve witnessed recently from the West.

I’m referring mainly to the wars fought in the times of the 1st, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3rd generation of Islam and up to the time of Salahuddin as those were the standard by which to judge us.

Please do not quote the actions of Genghis Khan as was he was not considered to be a Muslim by scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Dhahabi. He was said to have raised himself up to the level of a prophet. He followed his own weird twisted form of Islam and did things which were not considered to be the actions of mainstream Sunni Islam.

 

[GodIsAll]

RE: Propaganda

Musta, we hear both sides. Some western media outlets wants to focus on violence by Muslims, others focus on how, proportionately, these are a very small group of people. I believe it would help public perception if more Muslims were outspoken against some of these actions.

Now, before someone turns the table on me, I fully admit western foreign policy is selfish, bullying and oppressive. My wish would be to get American militaries out of foreign countries all together. The nation I am basically forced to pay taxes to has committed atrocities that irk me to no end. America has the capability to be a country that could be a benefit to people worldwide...when ASKED. According to most polls, Americans are against occupation in Afghanistan. Iraq was invaded under false pretense. As citizens, we need to do a better job letting our "elected" leaders know what our will is. A change is needed, either with our leaders or a revamping of our system.

For those of you not in America, try to understand this: We are bombarded with biased media and instilled from birth a mentality of patriotism. This is a well-oiled psychological MACHINE. This allows our leaders to act to their benefit and we are "sheepled" into backing them nigh unconditionally. I do believe, at its origin, America was a nation of integrity and courage. Not so much anymore. We, as citizens, are fed just enough wealth and health for us to feel grateful for our situation while a small percentage make decisions that affect the entire world and fatten their larders beyond capacity.

I will not generalize Muslims. I have taught school for over 20 years and have had some awesome Muslim immigrant students and I am a better man for having experienced them. I beg readers not to generalize Americans or the EU. There are some awesome humans all over the world. We need in the west to protest the shady dealings of our government(s). Muslims need to show what Islam really is in a voice so loud it cannot be ignored by mainstream media.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if now, today, this very moment, we could all start over? No revenge. No anger. Pull western agendas back to within their own borders and deal with all our neighbors in only mutually beneficial and forthright ways? No conspiracys, no conspiracy theories. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists treating each other with respect? Seeking to convert others by dialogue only?

Genuine love to all.

 

[Independent]

My main point is not about the conduct of Muslim imperial warfare or about their subsequent rule. I’m simply saying that when you look at history all empires continued to expand until somebody stopped them. If you take away the names and the faces, Muslim empires look exactly the same in this respect. No better, no worse. You are claiming that Muslim empires have conducted a kind of perfect history where everyone else has failed but I don't think that's true.

(I'm talking about Muslims, not Islam.)

The Muslim empires continued to expand up to the exact point when their military capacity reached its limit and they were surpassed. It has nothing to do with religion one way or the other.

I can confidently say that this does not happen on the same scale when Muslims go to war. The no. of wrongdoings on the Muslim side are far less that what we’ve witnessed recently from the West.

Every nation likes to think its own soldiers are the good guys and demonise the opposition. You say the west is selective about its history and reporting – well, that cuts both ways and if you look through the 1400 years of Muslim imperial history you’ll find plenty of embarrassments, just like any other empire or nation.

For instance, the most important figure historically with regard to the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem is not Saladin but Baibars.

Baibars sacked multiple Christian cities and repeatedly massacred the inhabitants. I’ll describe just one, the city of Antioch. When the defence failed and his troops entered the city Baibars promptly broke his promise of amnesty to the defenders and executed 40,000 Christians. Another 100,000 were sold into slavery. It is said that a little boy was worth twelve dirhems and a little girl five dirhems. He also defiled Christian churches and relics – and was proud of it.

We know this because he describes it himself in a letter to the Christian ruler of Antioch (who was not in the city at the time): 'Death came among the besieged from all sides and by all roads: we killed all that thou hadst appointed to guard the city or defend its approaches. If thou hadst seen thy knights trampled under the feet of the horses, thy provinces given up to pillage, thy riches distributed by measures full, the wives of thy subjects put to public sale; if thou hadst seen the pulpits and crosses overturned, the leaves of the Gospel torn and cast to the winds, and the sepulchres of thy patriarchs profaned; if thou hadst seen thy enemies, the Mussulmans trampling upon the tabernacle, and immolating in the sanctuary, monk, priest and deacon; in short, if thou hadst seen thy palaces given up to the flames, the dead devoured by the fire of this world, the Church of St Paul and that of St Peter completely and entirely destroyed, certes, thou wouldst have cried out "Would to Heaven that I were become dust!" '.


A few other things you mentioned:

Please do not quote the actions of Genghis Khan

I know. I wasn’t referring to Genghis as a Muslim (wasn’t it his grandson Haluga Khan who converted?) I was just quoting him because he was probably the most destructive warlord in history.

Are you comparing Islam to facism?

Not at all. When people use the phrase ‘the war against fascism’ they are usually referring to the 1930s/40s battle against Mussolini, Hitler and Franco and that’s exactly what I mean here.

I wasn’t expecting you to agree with me on this one but we don’t need to look very far back like for e.g Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's strange - by far the most significant cause of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Gulf War was the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Gulf War, yet it never gets mentioned. However, it’s impossible to talk about Iraq or Afghanistan without getting into conspiracy theories so it's hard to compare with past wars.

 

[جوري]

The U.S would be better off adopting an isolationist policy. It started well enough and should have left well enough alone. Once you've Zionists running the show the U.S is bound to end up like its European counterparts -- oh wait a second, not bound already is again redefining what it means to be bankrupt.
Guess man made systems really do fail in the end and the misery is only hastened with Zionists on board.. I am sure they'll move to China next.. they're already selling American secrets there.. whatever works as is the case with all parasites!

best,

 

[GodIsAll]

I have been looking for proof of Zionist manipulation of American government without much success.

I'd appreciate any links you have handy and would share.

Thanks!
GIA

 

[Abu Loren]

I have been looking for proof of Zionist manipulation of American government without much success.

LOL (sorry for the lol) but it's not listed on a web page or a book. You will know it if you looking from the outside. As you are inside, you will not see it.

 

[GodIsAll]

I see where you're coming from, but again, any documentation, texts, etc. you could lead me to would be appreciated.

 

[Abu Loren]

Research 'The Rothschild Foundation'.

 

[جوري]

actually just google who runs American politics.
there's a laundry list.
here's one I found in less than you can blink:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/01/16/who-runs-america/

there's a huge series on youtube.. catch them while they're hot I doubt anything critical of the cockroach state will last long.

best,

 

[GodIsAll]

Thanks, BLueBell and Abu.

Honestly, I could not find much reliable the other night other than definitions of "zionism", etc.
I'll peruse these sources expediently and thanks!